Jordan Love Appreciation Thread

[incognito_man]

13 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Jordan Love stinks because of Aaron Rodgers.  I guess I have heard it all now.

Didn't hear that from me because Jordan Love doesn't stink

[packfanfb]

29 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

We blame Aaron Rodgers for being a pouty ***** and putting us in this position. And we credit Gute for assembling a team full of young talent. We can also blame the coaching staff for not doing as well as they probably could be right now with that young talent.

We don't need to blame people for the inevitable ebb and flow of roster building in the NFL, either.

I think at this point, you and I are just in bizarro world on this topic. I've bolded the part that I don't 100% disagree with. 

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I think at this point, you and I are just in bizarro world on this topic. I've bolded the part that I don't 100% disagree with. 

Yes, you're in bizzaro world of you 100% disagree that the NFL produces natural ebbs and flows for roster construction.

Considering that's how the NFL is entirely designed and how it works in everyone else's reality.

[packfanfb]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes, you're in bizzaro world of you 100% disagree that the NFL produces natural ebbs and flows for roster construction.

Considering that's how the NFL is entirely designed and how it works in everyone else's reality.

I 100% agree that the NFL can produce natural ebbs and flows for roster construction (the new issue you just raised). I 100% disagree that is the issue that is happening in Green Bay (the original point raised in the previous post). 

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I 100% agree that the NFL can produce natural ebbs and flows for roster construction (the new issue you just raised). I 100% disagree that is the issue that is happening in Green Bay (the original point raised in the previous post). 

So GB is immune to it and it affects just the other 31 teams? GB is destined to always be above average? Even when the entire offense is on their rookie contracts?

Yes. One of us is definitely in bizzaro world.

[minnypackerfan]

It's probably a coincidence, but the offensive line sprung leaks when Bak went down and Jenkins got hurt. Jenkins still does not look 100% but he's out there trying. It shows how important a lock down left tackle is.

I'm hoping that for the rest of this year and next year the game slows down for some of our WR's and tight ends. Musgrave in particular seems to be attempting to run everything real fast. Kelsey is one of the best at setting up DB's and linebackers and creating open space for the QB to throw to.  Adams was one of the best I've seen at slow playing a route, setting up a DB with moves and creating space.

As far as the rest of the offensive line...less scheme and more fundamentals.

As for Love....just let it go and throw it. Forget "air under the ball". Your underthrowing all your deep balls by a yard or two, just let it rip deep and let your WR go get it. We got speed there, let it shine.

And for all of them "play within yourself"...and as Bill Belichick would say "just do your job, and let us worry about the guy next to you not doing theirs". 

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, minnypackerfan said:

t's probably a coincidence

It's definitely not a coincidence that our best offensive game was the one Bakh played in. He is awesome when he plays and makes the entire OL that much better.

Real shame.

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

I'm not an advocate of pulling Love at any point this season, you have to give him a full 17 games and there's no utility in pulling him anyways because the season is already over. Just play him and see what he has to offer for the next season if he ends up being the guy. 

That being said, I do agree with some of the issues highlighted above and they are the same qualms I've had with him to date, especially the 2nd bullet point. The anticipation and field reading skills concern with me Love. That stuff can be developed and learned over time to some extent but it's also a natural gift. I'm worried he just never gets there on a consistent basis. 

I wasn't clear on "why" I would play Clifford.

It's because of MLF.  This year is as much about evaluating Love as it is MLF.  If Clifford trots out there and looks better, then we know it's the QB.  If he looks similar to Love, then we know it could have something to do with the coach(ing).

That's why I'd want to see Clifford.  To help with an MLF evaluation.

Obviously you evaluation a coach on more than just QB play, but it would be another way of evaluating if we are doing the right things for the future.

[packfanfb]

9 minutes ago, minnypackerfan said:

It's probably a coincidence, but the offensive line sprung leaks when Bak went down and Jenkins got hurt. Jenkins still does not look 100% but he's out there trying. It shows how important a lock down left tackle is.

I'm hoping that for the rest of this year and next year the game slows down for some of our WR's and tight ends. Musgrave in particular seems to be attempting to run everything real fast. Kelsey is one of the best at setting up DB's and linebackers and creating open space for the QB to throw to.  Adams was one of the best I've seen at slow playing a route, setting up a DB with moves and creating space.

As far as the rest of the offensive line...less scheme and more fundamentals.

As for Love....just let it go and throw it. Forget "air under the ball". Your underthrowing all your deep balls by a yard or two, just let it rip deep and let your WR go get it. We got speed there, let it shine.

And for all of them "play within yourself"...and as Bill Belichick would say "just do your job, and let us worry about the guy next to you not doing theirs". 

Losing Bak hurt, no question about that. However, overall, I think I read or heard that the Packers' OL is still near the top in terms of not giving up sacks. Not sure about pressure rate, but I don't think it's terrible and certainly cannot account for the passing game being this bad. 

For me, everything seemed the fall apart from the last drive of the ATL game to present. There were two drives by Love and Co. against ATL in the 3rd quarter (the TD to Reed and TD to Wicks) that were beautiful drives. Love was slinging it, guys were open and it was working. Literally since then there's been no consistency at all and even beyond "consistency" the bad parts have been realllllly bad. We had one good run there in the second half versus the Saints but even that was helped out by at least one (maybe two) big PI calls we got in our favor. I haven't seen the same QB in Love that I saw for those couple drives in the 3rd against ATL. I've seen a guy who isn't sure of it, who's lobbing the ball all over instead of letting it fly, and this is coupled with the issues everywhere else on that side of the ball. 

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

You should tell JT O'Sullivan and Kurt Warner you're better at evaluating QBs than they are

I'll send them your regards.

[packfanfb]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I wasn't clear on "why" I would play Clifford.

It's because of MLF.  This year is as much about evaluating Love as it is MLF.  If Clifford trots out there and looks better, then we know it's the QB.  If he looks similar to Love, then we know it could have something to do with the coach(ing).

That's why I'd want to see Clifford.  To help with an MLF evaluation.

Obviously you evaluation a coach on more than just QB play, but it would be another way of evaluating if we are doing the right things for the future.

I honestly believe MLF goes home at night, pulls out a picture and 12 and 17 and says, "man, I had it good." Not even trying to use hyperbole here...I think the guy is lost. 

[incognito_man]

Some real hot takez lol

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Mox said:

Unless the Packers are picking top 3, we're probably better off taking a stud OT, and rolling with the same group next year for some continuity and to see the potential growth. If we suck again, then yeah, take a QB with a better supporting cast around them.

One has to wonder this.....why did we look so much better on the road in week one against the Bears?

Are they that much worse than we are?  At first, it looks like yes, they are.  But now?  Eh.  Not so sure.

So what was the difference?  To me it was Bakh.  He and Jenkins together held down that side of the line.  It's easier to "fix" or call around a weak spot on the line.  But weak spots?  As in plural?  Yeah, a good LT can make a huge difference.

I kind of saw it yesterday, though it was against softer looks.  But Nijman played enough LT and held up well and I thought that things just looked better.

So, if we are to continue on with Love and even MLF, it would be very, very wise to invest heavily in the OL.  As much as I'd love Harrison Jr, if we go that route, we need to sign a quality LT in FA.  I hope it makes more sense to save that money and use a high pick on a premium LT.  I've long thought LT was Tom's best position, but there's nothing wrong with him at RT at all.  He's in that very good category and could get even better.

EDIT:  Should have read the other posts before posting the same thoughts.

Edited October 30, 2023 by vegas492

[Mox]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

One has to wonder this.....why did we look so much better on the road in week one against the Bears?

Are they that much worse than we are?  At first, it looks like yes, they are.  But now?  Eh.  Not so sure.

So what was the difference?  To me it was Bakh.  He and Jenkins together held down that side of the line.  It's easier to "fix" or call around a weak spot on the line.  But weak spots?  As in plural?  Yeah, a good LT can make a huge difference.

I kind of saw it yesterday, though it was against softer looks.  But Nijman played enough LT and held up well and I thought that things just looked better.

So, if we are to continue on with Love and even MLF, it would be very, very wise to invest heavily in the OL.  As much as I'd love Harrison Jr, if we go that route, we need to sign a quality LT in FA.  I hope it makes more sense to save that money and use a high pick on a premium LT.  I've long thought LT was Tom's best position, but there's nothing wrong with him at RT at all.  He's in that very good category and could get even better.

EDIT:  Should have read the other posts before posting the same thoughts.

I'm sure that's part of it. I think another part of that week 1 success is not knowing what our offense was about or what it would look like. As time has gone on and more film is out on us, every team has been prepared to shut us down in the first half of games. 

If we have a chance at Caleb, or we really like Drake and have a shot at him, then take one of those guys. Otherwise, go OT or trade down for a haul. We're not only a QB away from anything right now.

[ThatJerkDave]

11 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I wasn't clear on "why" I would play Clifford.

It's because of MLF.  This year is as much about evaluating Love as it is MLF.  If Clifford trots out there and looks better, then we know it's the QB.  If he looks similar to Love, then we know it could have something to do with the coach(ing).

That's why I'd want to see Clifford.  To help with an MLF evaluation.

Obviously you evaluation a coach on more than just QB play, but it would be another way of evaluating if we are doing the right things for the future.

The problem I have with that sentiment is, I don't believe that Clifford will show you anything other than MLF looks bad, because Clifford himself is indeed bad.  I think your absolute best showing from Clifford is where a struggling Love is right now.  So we would be going from not good enough to not good enough, even if MLF were a scientific rocket.  

I am more frustrated with MLF than I am with any of the players, or Gute.  We have been seeing an unentertaining, non-competitive product.  We knew (or should have known) there were going to be struggles.  But we were expecting a little bit of positive to go with the negative.